It looks fine to me. Colima does not have a port symbol, it has a line. I doubt very many people will be confused. The fact that this one person used the word "bogus" in block caps doesn't mean it is a serious flaw in the map (or even a flaw at all). The only "solution" I can see, if one were needed, would involve serious distortion of the borders so that the Colima label could fit in the region.

Sorry for the late nitpicks but can you change "Valle del Anahuac" to "Valle de Anahuac" MrBenn?Other thing that changed from version 5 to beta is the junction indicated by the blue arrow:For geographic acurracy it should change from:To:

fumandomuerte wrote:Agree. Already suggested to change the bonus requirement for the ports from 3 for +2 to 5 for +3 (or a +4).

I'm sorry, but no one's going to be taking out 10 neutrals for a +4 bonus on a medium-sized map.

If you don't scrap the neutral ports, ports will only be used in desperation by a losing team trying to break a bonus on the other side of the map. And, since the losing team will have to go through 4 neutrals to break the bonus, it will probably only hasten their defeat.

If you're fixed on neutral ports, changing the ports to 1 neutral each, and have 2 ports be worth 2 or more armies might be okay.

Though I think that just having them as regular territories would be best.

Sorry about all this criticism, but I'm not wrong in that having neutral ports will make them a total non-factor in team games and 1v1. If this is what you're going for, fine. I just think it would be a more complex and layered map if you made the ports important.

Don't get me wrong. What I'm saying is that Ports should not be coded as neutrals and the bonus they give right now (+2 for any 3) must be adjusted to avoid drop advantages with a requirement of holding 5 to claim more troops, not 3.

I'm not sure if there was any serious thoughts into making the ports start neutral - I;d sort of assumed it would be a sensible thing to do... Having said that, I would definitely prefer keeping them in normal play

The options I see are:

a) Leave it as it was before (with no designated neutrals). The downside of this, is that it leaves 37 starting terrs, meaning 2/3p games start with 12 terrs and an extra advantage to whoever starts

b) Make one port on each ocean start neutral (2 neutral armies), and leave the bonus as it is. (although this still means there's a 33% chance of dropping one of the bonuses.

c) Make one port on each ocean start neutral, but change the bonus to +2 for holding all the ports on the same sea

My favourite is probably option C, with the two central ports starting neutral.

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that